We've Experienced Many Different Cultures...

Dudes, I just heard a guy in a race on TV (Expedition Impossible? -- the wife is watching) say we've experienced many different cultures and I think that's going to give us an edge     Uh.... to run a half mile through some desert and then ride a horse 7 more miles to a goal?  Whatever.

Yeah, the experiencing many different cultures is really gonna help 'em out there.

That's how bad the worship of multiculturalism has gotten.  Guy says something like that on national TV and he thinks he's said something meaningful and profound.

Ok, Coulter Kicked My Post's Asterisk

Glenn Beck vs the Mob

'Course, it's kinda her job. and I just make sure systems stay running and secure.

Nice job, Ann.

I Think I Like Twitter

Not that I tweet myself, though I do have an account.  More because it seems to be a honey pot to catch incriminating evidence against people who want to tell one story to their friends, and a completely different one to the world.  People who somehow think that posting something on the internet can be equated somehow to a private conversation.

I don't keep up with Glenn Beck like I used to.  I drop in on him a few times a week, but I miss some details.  And so I missed the "wine spill" incident that Morgan mentioned in an otherwise unrelated blog post.  Which I then took the opportunity to hijack the comment link to talk about that, specifically.

Because I've listened to the guy for several years, and I'm willing to bet that the man is not a liar, and in fact goes out of his way to get his facts straight, and separates his facts from his opinions.

Now I gave Little Miss Yellowtail Chardonay and her friend Lindsey Piscitell (see her letter in the comments) the benefit of the doubt at first.  I figured with people giving him a cold reception and saying things like "We hate conservatives here" ... that maybe it was an accident as she said and Glenn misinterpreted it in this context (even though she herself called it a "happy accident").   In this case it is literally her word against Glenn's, and while I'm inclined to believe Glenn as a direct audience member who's gotten a feel for him over the years -- hey.  Glenn could've gotten it wrong.  It happens.

I started thinking more about why people would be inclined to believe Lindsey over Glenn -- and of course the best answer is because they want to -- much like I wanted to believe Glenn.  But most of the people who just swallowed her story have never heard of Lindsey Piscitell.  I on the other hand have much more than heard of Glenn Beck.  And so had they.  But as I, again, have heard him first hand over a long period of time to give me a good feel for who he is, the only things they "know" about Glenn Beck came from listening to other people talk about Glenn Beck ... and further, only from people whom they are willing to listen to -- talking about Glenn Beck.  (The vast majority of whom have also never listened to Glenn Beck.)   Which de-facto excludes anyone with anything but a negative opinion of Glenn Beck.   So their opinion is in this little self-sequestered bubble, unmoored from any reality other than a lot of people appear to hate Glenn Beck. Most of whom themselves are in their own little self-sequestering bubbles.  Ask them to give you an example of a Glenn Beck lie or Glenn Beck "hate".  A few who have been at this hate game for a long time might know of something very unrelated to politics or race or any other thing they rant about 15 or so years ago before Glenn's awakening and complete personal transformation.

Well it turns out that Lindsey's story doesn't hold much water upon further inspection, thanks to twitter.  Yeah, she was tweeting about her proximity to Glenn Beck, and made a comment F*cking #asshole @glenbeck is siting next to me at Bryant park movie night #getthefuckoutofmycity.  (Even though she herself claims to be from San Francisco.  So I'm not sure why it's any more hers than Glenn's.)

It further turns out that a friend tweeted back a suggestion to spill something on him or kick him in the mouth.   It also turns out THAT person's twitter account was quickly deleted.

On top of that, Lindsey commented on a blog that Glenn's security guards got a little agitated.  In her letter she said that they were just tumbling and doing acrobatics -- so innocent, and she couldn't understand why.  So innocuous.  In her blog comment she said that she held up a sign that said "fascist douchebag" (some of that famous creative "poetry", I'm sure) and pointed at him and took a picture.   Funny she didn't mention that in her letter to New York Magazine.

In another comment on the same blog, a woman asked why Glenn hadn't been chased onto the Staten Island Ferry by a screaming mob with torches and pitchforks.

And little Miss Lindsey replied "We tried as best we could", and referenced photos and an email to someplace called "gawker".  I wonder if we can find that email?

Yeah.  I like twitter.  It keeps people honest, and when it doesn't, it shows that they aren't.

76 Wicca Street

I heard about the flap over "Seven in Heaven" St. in New York.  Personally, I think the name's a bit hokey.  But it's not my city, it's not my street.  It's not mine to name.

And I meant to say something about it -- it was one of the things I was considering for a post.  But you know.  I have a job.  And my young grandson's family to help as right now mommy and daddy are working their humps off to make ends meet.  So we've been babysitting, putting their garden in.  Plus you know we have a house, too.  There's stuff to do.

But over at Morgan's place I was lured in to commenting by tim (love ya, man, and I'm not trying to piss you off or anything, nor you me -- so let's just get that out of the way) -- but here at The Clue Batting Cage we do work hard to try to correct misconceptions that have been drilled into peoples' heads (including ours!) over the years -- about what the First Amendment means.  And what it doesn't mean.

The thing is, the Federal Government didn’t fund that sign. And if it did, it shouldn’t have, not because it’s “religious” (it’s not), but because it’s a local street and the Federal government shouldn’t be involved in it whatsoever.

The first amendment was written in order to keep the Federal Government from establishing a State Religion, like the Church of England, where an unelected Church Official (The Archbishop of Canterbury) was a State position as well as a Church position. The 10th Amendment says that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. So if somebody wanted to establish a Mormon town and name all of their streets right out of the book of Mormon, that’d be cool by the Constitution.

The first amendment doesn’t say anything about religious expression in general other than to say that it is protected (in the free speech clause), it only says that “Congress Shall Pass No Law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The Hard Rock Cafe, one could say, is a drinking establishment. It is an establishment of drinking. Might also be an eating establishment. But it is an officially recognized organization (a company with a charter and a name that does specific things in their own way). Similarly, an “establisment” of religion would be a Church such as the Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, the Episcopalian Church …. etc.

Everyone seemed to get this until about 1949.

In the beginning, some states even had state religions, believe it or not.

Thing is, the Founders never imagined anything other than Christian churches being “legitimate” as far as religion.  If they had, they'd probably have written something to that effect in.   I think there was a little fear of real religious persecution of anyone, including non-Christians -- but probably more afraid of people deciding that certain brands of Christianity weren't really Christianity. Yes, a bit culture-centric. But seriously, are we really trying to suggest that any element of culture with religious references is illigitimate? They came from a place where some Christians persecuted other Christians because they had the power of the state behind them to enforce it. Since “Congress Shall Pass No Law”, there’d be no such law to enforce. But it doesn’t say “Cities shall name no street.” It’s flat-out ludicrous on its face.

It was asked if we would be offended if a street were to be named "There Is No God" Street.  Well, if the City Council or elected county officials decided they wanted to name a street “There Is No God Street”, ok. Fine. Not going to be too many cities where the culture (and cities do have culture, and some of it can be religioius) and if some whacked out council did it and the people of the city didn’t like it the people would vote them out next time around and re-name the bloody street.

Like it or not, a nearly homogeneously Christian population with mostly Christian representation who never imagined the country would be anything other than that started this country — historically, it has Christian roots and most Americans continue to call themselves Christian. We are allowed to have a culture and we are allowed to have symbols and words and holidays that come out of that culture represented in our street names and park names and fountain names or whatever. It’s gonna show up in public. Deal with it. The founders also extended religious tolerance to non-Christians. That’s right. Religious tolerance brought to you by Christians. But tolerance does not mean accomodation.

You don’t see cries for taking down totem poles.  The Druids thought Oak trees sacred, but you don’t see people screaming about Oak street and until recently, ACORN was federally funded. We refer to the skies beyond our atmosphere as “The Heavens”. Nobody’s forcing you to pray to any God, much less in a particular way, or to keep you from praying to yours or clinging to your claims of non-existence of said being when they talk about “The Heavens”.

Many of the “Muslims” I know are really what I call “cultural Muslims”. They use a lot of the terms and symbols of the religion, but they rarely, if ever, go to a mosque. They’re “Muslim” like a lot of Americans and Europeans are “Christian”. Merry Christmas. Happy Easter. Happy (St.) Valentine’s Day. Happy St. Patrick’s Day. Happy Thanksgiving. Oh God! Oh Jesus! Heck, even “Geez” came from “Jesus” (as in, a way to “say” it without violating the “taking the Lord’s name in vain” rule). And Heck is a euphamim for Hell. And Golly for God.
I’m not offended by Hanukkah. I wouldn’t be offended by Amitabha Buddha Day. Or street. Look, here’s a condo for sale at 76C Wicca St. in Kewdale, WA. I’m pretty sure the ACLU and/or whoever it is suing over “Heaven” street or whatever aren’t beating down the door to get that changed. Nor are Christians. Towns, rivers, mountains, streets … named after American Indian religious terms. Devil’s Tower National Monument. Devil’s Den State Park. Devil’s Garden in Arches National Monument. Nobody’s offended. Stonehenge replicas and totem poles in public parks. A lot of Christians were outraged when the Taliban blew up those ancient Buddhist statues. Why? They recognize their cultural and historical significance. It’s absolutely insane in the modern world to try to forcefully sanitize religious influence from a culture. At least for the time being, they are not only intertwined, but long-infused. And from my experience with human nature, this is not likely to change.

All of this hubub isn’t really about people being offended. It is about using government as a stick to beat up on people that militant atheists don’t like — because of their religious beliefs. It’s the opposite of the protection the first amendment was intended to provide. It is using government to persecute people of certain religious beliefs. It’s worse than that, it’s cultural persecution on a grand scale.

"Congress", in the context of The Constitution means the Federal Congress and not the States' Congress',  Congress passed no law to name the street. What law would be broken if the city were to rename the street? None. So, what law passed by Congress named that street? The Constitution gave Congress no authority to name the street, and Congress indeed didn't name the street by law or any other method. and The 10th Amendment stands out there just pretty much not caring except to say "hey, states, y'all're on yer own here. Go for it."

Congress, as I said, had no hand even in making the street outside of getting State and Local governments hooked on Federal money for their streets and highways so that the Federal Government could regulate them -- which is a BIG problem we need to correct in the first place.

I think it's a big stretch to say that if Congress allocated money for street signs and some street maintenance in New York and that the People of New York through their elected officials decided to name a street "Seven in Heaven Way" that that meant that Congress passed a law that had anything to do with "respecting" an "establishment" of religion. One can drive or walk down "Seven in Heaven" way without worshipping or acknowledging nor making any religious observation whatsoever any more than my driving to Devil's Tower means I'm worshipping Satan. One can even flip off the street sign or fart in its general direction and the law will not lay a finger on you. That is the meaning of and the purpose of that bit of the Constitution. Nothing more.

Consider this. A good definition of a Liberal as any is someone who can rationalize anything to mean anything he wants it to mean, regardless of what the author intended (and this serves as "proof" of his superior intelligence). But in my experience, once you get two or three generations down the "this could be interpreted to mean" logic chain and you are in a fantasy world.

Yessssssssssssss!!!!!

This guy loses me about 10% of the time ... but man, when he gets it -- he gets it.

Connoisseur

Admittedly, brother jeffmon (who sent me this link) has a quirky sense of humor.  But then again, apparently so do I.  I found this quite funny.

Again, the case for Iraq and Afghanistan

Someone asked Cassy why we are still in Afghanistan.

You can agree or disagree whether or not it is or will end up being effective, but there is a reason.  Just as there was a reason (outside of "blood for oil" and making Dick Cheney's friends rich -- the meme on the Left) for re-opening the Iraq war.

I've said all of this before, but here it is, in a nutshell:

When the Russians invaded Afghanistan during the Cold War, we helped the Afghans fight the Ruskies. When the Ruskies finally gave up and pulled out, we dropped Afghanistan like a hot potato. In the power vaccuum that followed, a bunch of people with a lot of military training and experience, many of whom were fundamentalist Muslims filled that vacuum to bring order from chaos. They stopped the general lawlessnes, only to impose their own draconian law, like lopping off hands and stoning people to death for what would seem to us as relatively innocuous infractions -- at least in proportion to the punishment.

One of the guys who we trained in that war was this guy named Osama Bin Laden. He was a Saudi who eventually became ticked off at the U.S. because we had troops with their dirty infidel feet stationed in Saudi Arabia after the big pretty much unanimous U.N. vote to kick Iraq out of Kuwait in the 1991 Desert Storm operation. Subsequently, our troops stayed there to enforce the U.N. "No-Fly" Zone in Iraq to try to rein in Saddam's brutal and often genocidal attacks on his internal enemies.

So in 1993 Bin Laden decided to teach the Great Satan a lesson by attempting to drop the World Trade Center in New York by blowing up what was believed to be a critical support in the parking garage below.

It killed several people, but ultimately failed.

Still the No Fly Zone in Iraq continued along with Infidel feet on holy Saudi soil, which stuck in Bin Laden's craw. After our meager responses to his repeated attacks, he found a home in the relatively lawless Afghanistan & the sympathetic Taliban. Ever-more convinced that the U.S. was a "paper tiger" and all that was needed was to kill a sufficient number of Americans and we'd leave in defeat as we had in Mogadishu and Lebanon, he pulled of a spectacularly evil sneak attack on U.S. Civilians on September 11, 2001.

You might notice that Iraq, indeed, had quite a bit to do with all of this if not in provable outright support for Bin Laden -- certainly in the situation that was set up by and after the 1991 war and the reaction of Al Queda's leader.

Now to fix all of this, we could have just pulled out of Iraq and left Saudi Arabia. But what would that have done? It would have proven Bin Laden right and encouraged Al Queda and perhaps other enemies of America to come kick some more tail. Perhaps even over here. So that was out. Next best thing? Finish the 1991 war -- which was technically and in fact tactically never finished and THEN pull out. This would send a different message.

Still, first things first, we went to Afghanistan to let Bin Laden and Al Queda know in no uncertain terms that this tiger has claws of steel and lasers for eyes and it is best not to piss him off.

But shortly after that, knowing the threat Saddam had previously posed and his lack of cooperation (that's putting it nicely) ... his outright obstruction of attempts to verify that he was complying with the terms of the cease-fire (which he also continually broke by, you know, firing). We had sat on our collective hands while we knew Bin Laden was plotting against us with passports and airline tickets, so we figured not only did we need to end the 1991 war in Iraq, we should also check Saddam against plotting against us with far more powerful means. We decided to take him at his word rather than dismiss him and wait and see.

Turns out he no longer had the weapons, but it really doesn't matter. Really angry letters from the U.N. weren't keeping him in compliance, and part of that compliance was to prove he did destroy them -- which he refused to do and blocked attempts to verify it.

Meantime, after the Taliban was toppled in Afghanistan, an attempt is being made to keep from leaving it as the same kind of power vacuum we left it in after the Russians left. It was fertile soil for sheltering violent extremists bent on destroying western civilization before, and it turns out that they CAN, in fact, be dangerous.

On NBC Dropping "Under God"

Apparently NBC dropped "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance in the pre U.S. Open coverage. Twice. The second time cutting more.

In their apology, they said that it was done in the interest of time and that "it wasn't done to upset anyone" (because you know, Golf is so fast-paced an extra two seconds might make you miss some of the blindingly rapid developments in the game.  The color commentator might have less time to clear his throat before telling us what color shirt a golfer was wearing or speculating on Tiger Woods career).

Oh, I'm sure they hoped nobody would be upset by it. But no, it was done because the leftists at NBC don't like it there, and want to help normalize it not being there.

Now it is true that it wasn't there to begin with, and that it was written by a Christian Socialist in the late 1800's. One has to wonder what "Christian Socialist" meant, as it proportedly had the goal of "saving mankind" through Socialism. Little wonder that the alleigance was to the flag first, then to the republic. At least he included the republic. But since the republic was created on the premise that life, liberty, and property were inalienable rights from God ... leaving God out is telling, even if he was supposedly a Baptist minister.  Can't have that if you want the state equitibly re-distributing these things.

So in the 1940's, there was a movement to put "under God" in as a reminder of this and as a defense against encroaching humanist/socialist ideas that had become popular in the early 20th century, leading to mass exterminations of people who did not agree with those ideas.

It is little wonder that today's collectivist statists would like it removed, restoring the pledge to its original, statist ideal.

Moving to the Right?

Over on facebook, an assertion was made that BOTH PARTIES have been moving to the right

the nation has moved to the right and so have the political parties. Look at someone like Richard Nixon ... and the policies he implemented. Don't forget that President Nixon signed the law that created the EPA and signed the Clean Air Act of 1970. He also worked to get SS benefits indexed for inflation. I can't imagine a contemporary Republican president doing the same. I can't imagine a contemporary Republican criticizing big business or warning of the "Military Industrial Complex" like Ike did.

*Sigh*

Never mind Obama/Pelosi/Reid being considered "right" in any way.

Since the American Standard of government restraint, of limited government is now considered "right" ....

The country (both parties) has been moving left since Woodrow Wilson, which is what led to Nixon drifting along with it. The "move" to the right is due to politicians overshooting the expectations of a center-right population and what's left of a culture of personal responsibility and respect for rule of law (the Constitution). Further, well meaning government organizations and programs did precisely what their critics said they would do and most Americans including myself, through wishful thinking, hoped they would not -- that is, over-reach, over-regulate, over-budget and foster ever-increasing raging appetites for funds and power.

The "right" has been trying to curb the overreach and maybe roll it back some, with very limited success -- since Reagan. But people get into office and promising to give more of Other People's Money that the politicians don't have to cough up and can blame the deficits on their successors and a population that either doesn't understand or doesn't care that this means debt gets passed on to future generations ... the equivalent of stealing ... push conservative politicians to "moderate" and compromise, which always means more spending and more regulation in the end.

The left talks of "taking food out of the mouths of children" and "pushing grandma over a cliff" (while it accuses the right of demagoguery) when the fact of the matter is that these aren't rights and they do cost money and money is spent wastefully and inappropriately when it doesn't come out of the pockets of the people spending it (but yet take the credit). Help is seen as a right rather than a gift and is treated as such, perpetuating cycles of the poverty and crime they are meant to abate -- and the answer is always more, more, more when the problems not only don't go away, but actually get worse. Nobody is allowed to question the premises. If you don't cough up more for the government to spend, you're heartless, greedy, racist ... all kinds of names. There's no POSSIBLE way you could be right that relative poverty will ALWAYS be with us and there are better ways -- most not involving government -- to address it.

Another Double Standard

Ever since Obama raised a metric cr*p-ton of money a few years ago in his election bid, it's suddenly cool and a sign of success and approval to raise lots of money for a political campaign.

But when a Republican does it, it's a sign of cronyism and sinister evil corporate interests.

You know, like NBC.  GM.  GE.  Google.

Misrepresent, Misquote, Marginalize

The Democratic strategy.

I saw a link to an article from facebook that a fb friend commented on.  The article's headline was "Bachmann Accuses Obama of Secret Medicare Plan".

The facebook comments ran along the lines of, "She's certifiable!"  "There's the Bachmann we know!"  etc.  Which tells me something. She did too well in that debate last week, after we'd been instructed to believe that she is a crackpot idiot.  This will never do.   She, like Palin, scares the crap out of them -- so she must be destroyed. 

If you read the article itself, you'll find that "secret" is not Michelle's word, but a word introduced by the NYTblog author, to make her sound like some tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist to fit the leftist/MSM narrative. And I'm having trouble finding the whole speech to put it in context. Whenever I search for it, I keep finding this same NYTBlog article, repeated as a meme all over the net. Bernard Goldberg was right. Everybody takes their leads from the NYT.

It's a bit like the supposed "I can see Russia from my house" misquote of Palin. Same technique, same purpose.

Yes, boys and girls, in adult American Politics, it is now acceptable to ridicule and dismiss ideas and statements merely because they fly in the face of the progressive narrative.

Here's her words from the article:

“This hasn’t been talked about very much – the president’s plan for senior citizens is Obamacare.  I think very likely what the president intends is that Medicare will go broke and ultimately that answer will be Obamacare for senior citizens.”

Hmmm.  Well is she right? 

Looks like she's pretty close on the $500 billion dollars, according to that Reuters article from March, 2010. Especially since the Dems fudged like a chocolate factory to get those numbers to appear on paper to be as low as possible.    And about that thinking it's very likely that the plan is to let Medicare go bankrupt and roll it into Obamacare, first of all, why is that so hard to believe?  Remember, the goal of the TIDES foundation, the Left's big think-tank that wrote the bill in the first place -- and to whom the Obama administration has a legion of ties -- is a "single-payer, universal health care plan".




The administration and their legions told us again and again, you will be able to keep your insurance if you like it. Of course, they knew full well that the insurance you have would disappear -- plans would change due to the pressure put on the insurance companies by the legislation. And the legislation also said that if you get a new plan, it must be under the new government-brokered, government-controlled system.

So in effect, there was a big asterisk at the end of that statement that went unannounced, publicly, and the media, cheering the whole thing on, wasn't about to expose the plan to the public either. And anyone who pointed these things out was painted as a tinfoil-hatter racist conspiracy theorist.

But there it was, anyway.


  

So why, then, is it so certain, beyond a doubt, that the unstated (publicly) ... not secret, but certainly not advertised -- plan for Meidicare -- is for it to go away? Why, if you mention the possibility, are you subject to immediate ridicule and dismissal?

We've already seen Obamacare took from it. It also changes it.




So Obamacare does indeed at least change and cut Medicare. So theoretically, the Republicans should be running a "Pushing Grandma Over a Cliff" ad against the Dems.

But instead, we have the "I mock, therefore it is untrue" defense coming from that side of the aisle.

All The Government We Need

Shamelessly swiped via Albany Media Bias. More on how I got there in the next post.

David Mamet - The Secret Knowledge

Ok, I'm 37 pages into this book, and I can unhesitatingly recommend reading it.  It's not that expensive.

It's written by a writer -- and by that I mean a non-academic, non-technical writer.  It's written by someone who writes books that people want to read and perhaps turn into movies.

But he's also clearly thought a lot about it, and read a lot about it, and ... it's clear, it's easy to read, and it is spot on.

Check this out:

If a country, a region, a race is in difficulty because of a lack of funds, any new or recurrent failure subsequent to any subvention [help, aid, support] in aid may be attributed to insufficient aid, and provide the rationale for that funding's increase.  But it may only do so given the acceptance of the nondemonstrable, indeed disprovable theory that government intervention increases wealth.

Hell, apply that to any do-gooder project the government "takes on" (or more properly, people use the coercive power of the government to "take on").   If you don't do it, you're not doing enough. If doing it doesn't fix the problem, you're not doing enough.  There is no limit to how much more people will use the government to "ask" for for any cause.  And everybody has a cause.  There are a lot of causes.  That's a lot of bottomless pits.

Better to let the people who want to help actually struggle with the whats and hows of tackling the problem, and what works, and what doesn't and why and what's efficient and effective ... you know, like people do when it's their own time and money.

And better because the money and time and effort comes from the people who care, and not from people who care more about other causes.

Anyway, the above quote and the ones from my previous post from last night .... just a taste.  This guy has great insight and knows how to use language to communicate his thoughts effectively.

Which is something we can use.

W O W ! ! !

You know ... frankly, I've seen it again and again.  But the sheer audacity always gets me.

"Taken In by Gay Girl Propaganda"

In an "Apology to Readers" posted on June 12 from his vacation in Istanbul, MacMaster writes, "While the narrative voice may have been fictional, the facts on this blog are true and not misleading as to the situation on the ground."

and

But the CNN story troubled her. The outlet encouraged the sin of "pink washing" - a term used by some anti-Israel critics to decry any attempt to compare Israel's treatment of gays with that of Arab states.

"Pink-washing"?

Again, it's amazing the logical contortions the Left has to go through to come to the necessary conclusion that all of their assumptions are correct, and nothing is right with anyone who disagrees with them.

EmailGate Footnote

One thing the 24,000 pages of Sarah Palin Email email did show, apparently, was the civility of her leftist opponents.

The release of 24,000 pages of Sarah Palin's emails shows that she received a barrage of abusive emails including death threats in the run up to the 2008 presidential race.

A Converted Liberal's Confession

Really more of an observation.

I cracked open my copy of David Mamet's "The Secret Knowledge", just arrived in the mail today.   Here is a prolific writer and life-long Liberal (by which I mean progressive, in this case, agreeing with the modern colloquial sense)  who at age 60 had a revelation.

This really stuck out:saw that I had been living in a state of ignorance, accepting an unexamined illusion and calling it "compassion", but that there were those brave enough to work their way through the prevailing slogans of their time, and reason toward a consistent, practicable understanding of human relations.  To these, politics was not the manipulation of the ignorant and undecided, but the dedication to the defense and implementation of just, first principles, for example, those of the United States Constitution.

Really sums it up rather well, doesn't it?

 the manipulation of the ignorant and undecided   -- Is that not a great description of what traditional (leftist) "Community Organizing" is all about?

Footnote on that same page:

The right and the left, I saw, differ not about programs, but about goals -- the goal of the Left is a government-run country and that of the right is the freedom of the individual from government.  These goals are difficult to reconcile, as the Left cannot be brought to actually state its intentions, nor to honestly evaluate the results of its actions.

Email Gate

The New York Times and its sister liberal rag the Washington Post along with the lefty blogosphere breathlessly drooled over the ~24,000 pages of Sarah Palin emails the State of Alaska released in response to a FOIA request.   I guess it happened over the weekend when I was busy relaxing in the wilderness.

And they both ... solicited help from their readers in going through them looking for interesting and newsworthy e-mails to look at.  Mother Jones, ProPublica, and MSNBC are creating a searchable database for the emails.  The time and effort the Left pour into trying to completely destroy Palin is   "unflippinbelievable!"  They must be afraid of something.  That or they are mentally ill.

As the UK Guardian reported " “Tens of thousands of pages of Sarah Palin's emails released on Friday offer an intimate portrait of a politician caught in an almost daily battle on issues ranging from oil exploration to an ethics investigation." 

John Hayward of Human Events commented "Does anyone think the media dove into the Governor’s correspondence looking to prepare an “intimate portrait” of her “daily battles?”

Yeah.  Seriously. What is the obsession with Palin?  More dirt has been dug for on this woman than anyone from her email to her garbage, and nothing has been found that they can latch their bloodthirsty teeth on to.

And I think this is the obsession.  So certain are they that she is both idiot and evil incarnate, that they know it must be there.  And if they can't find it, after all of their public proclamations and rantings, well it just has to be because they aren't looking hard enough.

Just look at this comment on the NYT Caucus blog post, the day before the release:

john john PA June 9th, 2011 2:25 pm

These e-mails will reveal the reality and factual information that the $arah worshippers have denied since the disgraced "Half-Term Quitter" became the failed VP loser in 2008. We will learn that Todd actually was the decision-maker in many of Alaska's affairs. We will also learn that $arah and Todd made countless efforts to cover-up their illegal dealings, both public and private. Additionally, all the excuses she attempted to sell to the media and her followers about why she quit will be discounted and found to be total fabrications and misrepresentations. Maybe SarahPAC will run another illegal Bus Tour so she can fool the people one more time. She remains the P. T. Barnum of 2011.

Well apparently we've learned nothing of the sort.  (And why is it that it's lauded when First Ladies to help make decisions, but not when it's First Dudes?)

Did you know that the Palins had a bunch of illegal dealings that they covered up?   I wonder if john john even knew what any of them allegedly were, or if he just knew there had to be something?  Or if he can enlighten us as to why it's illegal for a private citizen, or even a public one for that matter --  to take a bus tour of national historical sites? And I still don't get why even some conservatives (who theoretically would be more sympathetic to her) question the reasoning she gave for her resignation?  As Bill Whittle commented on the legal debt the Palins incurred over politically motivated frivolous lawsuits filed against her that all failed, $500,00 is real money to the Palins, and it's real money to you and me.  It was clear that she'd only incur more due to the nature of the unique Alaskan law, and that constantly fighting them and working on information requests was interfering with the running of the state.  Who here believes that would not be true?  But I digress.

Fortunately, a lot of the comments went the other way, asking why the Times didn't have people go through the 2,000+ pages of the health care bill, or why they don't solicit help getting to Obama's school records or his emails for that matter?  Or Pelosi's, or Biden's? 

I did rather like this one:

Topix New York, NY June 9th, 2011 4:38 pm

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!

All of this seems pathetic and disturbing.  And it is apparently, once again, blowing up in their collective, collectivist faces.

Where I Wuz

Yep, you don't even get cell phone reception out here.

Click to enlargificationalize.

Kinda looks like a Rebel Base from Star Wars, eh? 
But it's just the Jack's Fork River Valley, from above Alley Spring
near Eminence, MO

Morgan is right.  It's all fine and good to get all wrapped up in the politics of the country and worry and fret and spend time trying to do your part to steer the culture back from the brink, but remember -- you've got roughly 70, 80 years on this planet if all goes well, and there is enjoyment of life to be had.  This means family, friends, nature, and a nice burboun and water on ice.  Among other such things.

We had some neighbors ... the very same we went on this trip with (an annual event that's been going on for 15 years, or 34 if you go back to the lady of that house's childhood) that we used to hang out with when they lived across the street ... quite often, and especially in the summertime.  Out in the yard, or on the deck, quaffing a few and shootin' the breeze.  Sometimes it'd just be a few of us standing in the shade of the garage with a few beers.

Later we'd found out we'd been dubbed by some of the neighbors, "The Outside Guys".   Yeah, it was hot.  Yeah, it was humid.   But you have to remind yourself from time to time of what all of this nice cushy convenience we've built up was built to protect us from.

You have to do something to remind you of what "normal" is.  To De-Wuss-ify.  Deal with it.  And then when you go back into your climate control and sleep on your memory foam matress topper and there's running water and flushing toilets and no mosquitoes... you appreciate it that much more.

They moved about 25 miles east of us several years ago, but we still do this every summer.  And often again in the fall.

SNUL Weekend

Don't hold your breath for posts from philmon over the next few days.  I'll be back Sunday evening.

Yup, Morgan.  It's an official logo :-)

The Gospel According to NYT

HT to Morgan over at HKB (What Morgan calls facebook. The "Hello Kitty" of Bloggin')

This has to be shared. A lot. Because it's so innocently funny, and yet illuminatingly illustrative.

I lifted the following from  that page on Brutally Honest mostly for posterity.

This revealing glimpse into the mind of secularists brought to you by The New York Times, reporting about Jill Abramson, the new editor of The New York Times, who ardently proclaims the gospel of, well, The New York Times:

Ms. Abramson, 57, said that as a born-and-raised New Yorker, she considered being named editor of The Times to be like “ascending to Valhalla.”


“In my house growing up, The Times substituted for religion,” she said. “If The Times said it, it was the absolute truth.”

That was on Thursdy the 3rd. If you go to the New York Times today, you'll read the following:

Ms. Abramson, 57, said being named executive editor was “the honor of my life” and like “ascending to Valhalla” for someone who read The Times as a young girl growing up in New York. “We are held together by our passion for our work, our friendship and our deep belief in the mission and indispensability of The Times,” she said. “I look forward to working with all of you to seize our future. In this thrilling and challenging transition, we will cross to safety together.”

Still clinging to "Ms.", I see.

Things I Know #35

35. There are no "false choices.  Only false assumptions about their consequences.

She's Right, They're Wrong, But She's the Idiot???

Sigh.

Here we go again.  Yes, the Boston Tea Party happened in 1773.

And yes, Paul Revere "warned the British" that the Americans were armed, though "put the British on notice" might have been a better way to put it.  But then again, she was shopping in a gift shop, casually talking to people, not giving a speech.

Still, you have people saying things like  "I suppose you could say that, but I don’t know if that’s really what Mrs. Palin was referring to.” and "I would call her lucky in her comments." Really?  What would make you say that other than a prejudiced opinion?

How is it that she keeps getting so lucky?  

How does something she appears to know and that you appear not to know mean she's stupid before you even know you're wrong?  She's right, you're wrong, and she's a "lucky" idiot?  There's no possible way she could have really known this detail because nobody else seems to and she talks a little funny?

Is it, perhaps, that so many people believe the concocted meme her political enemies in the media have put out there that she's a dimwit Barbie doll (which would be sexist if she were a Democrat)?

Take, for instance, the most famous thing she ever said -- (that she actually never said):

"I can see Russia from my house!"

What she actually said was "They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska". It was an introductory sentence to her answer in a clearly hostile interview where she could be cut off and steered away from her answer the moment Gibson decided he had what he wanted.

Her point, of course, was not that she knew a thing or two about dealing with Russia because you can see parts of it from parts of Alaska, or that she personally had or could see it from anywhere, really. her point was, of course, that being governor of a state in such close proximity to Russia and dealing with the resulting border issues meant that she was not unfamiliar with diplomacy issues with Russia. Period.

But the hostile left and its media allies successfully drilled it into the rest of the left and into popular American culture that she meant the former and use memes such as this to dismiss anyone who supports Palin as soon as her name comes up, and to deter people from taking her seriously enough to actually listen to what she's saying.

You rarely hear from the media much of what she's saying. It's mostly the way she said it, or a snippet such as this one taken completely out of context.

Is Sarah Palin an idiot?  Hell no.  Does Sarah Palin seem to have a problem speaking off the cuff?  Yeah, occasionally.   So do I.

And so does he. (note, the video was labeled by the person who made the video, not by me. I don't think this shows Obama an idiot. And that's my point.)


Update:

Cylarz points us to more (via a comment at Morgan's):

My Blurb on Weinergate

I don't really care that Weiner twitted his barely BVD contained weiner to ... whoever.  As long as it wasn't me or my wife or kids or grandkids.

What I see is yet another example of the glaring double standard the media has for conservatives vs. liberals.

If this were, say, Paul Ryan, everybody in the MSM would've been all over it right away more likely than not in a guilty-until-proven-innocent kind of way, but even then, , we all know he really did it, right?  I mean, he's a Republican.  Saynomore, knowhatimean, nudge-nudge, wink-wink.

But no, when this first came out, it was attack Breitbart for even bringing up the story, and accuse him of making a false accusation -- which Breitbart had steered well clear of -- but that doesn't matter.  He's a conservative potentially embarrassing a liberal, and so he's the bad guy whether the liberal is guilty or not.  He's not a real journalist.

No, and he'll say that up front.  He's a self-described activist.  Which makes him one thing that the leftist MSM is not.  Honest.   See, they're activists, too, they just pretend not to be.

See, "real journalists" would just ignore this story unless it just couldn't anymore without looking completely in the bag -- because it's a Democrat.    It happened with Clinton.  It happened with Edwards.  It happened (and still happens) with Obama.  They run interference, deciding what will be "important" to the country themselves, shaping the narrative to fit their activist agenda.

If it were a Republican, like I said, they'd be all over it, and they'd be all over Breitbart for saying hold on just a minute.  Or say if it were some "rich, white" LaCrosse players accused of rape by a black stripper exotic dancer "poor oppressed working girl".   Because "real journalists" are activsts.   And that'd be fine, if they'd just admit it up front.  And if they had any respect for inconvenient facts.

The other thing is Republicans tend to kick their bad apples out, whereas Democrats stamp their feet and call you names and make excuses for theirs.

Beauty this time is that it's becoming more and more clear that they got caught with their collective(ist) pants down, so to speak, pretty quickly this time as it's looking more and more like ... yeah, Weiner in fact probably tweeted his Oscar Meyer.